You wrote:
“I have tried to be respectful of you, while disagreeing with your erroneous statements regarding Roman Catholicism and conflating it (mistakenly) to universalism.”
That’s a logically impossible statement on your part for two reasons: 1) I made no errors regarding the Catholic faith whatsoever. 2) I never conflated Catholicism with universalism EVER. Thus, you are mistaken....again.
“This point, despite the Roman Catholic Church’s attempt to claim to the contrary, is not supported in Scriptures. Christ did not establish the Roman Catholic Church. Period.”
He established the Catholic Church. I am not “Roman Catholic”. That is a term invented in the English langauge by Protestants. If you don’t believe me, you can look it up in the OED.
“Your remarks have become increasingly hostile and vitriolic.”
Doubtful. My comments are almost always strong and confrontational. Period.
“If you cannot engage in the issues without being insulting - which I’m beginning to think is the case - then there is no point in continuing. I mistakenly believed you were actually interested in a civil engagement of your stance on Roman Catholicism. My mistake.”
Again, I am not discussing “Roman Catholicism”. I would be more than happy to discuss Catholicism, however. You could at the very least muster up enough decency to call me by the proper appellation: Catholic.
“I will say, furthermore, that you are woefully misinformed when it comes to the Gospel - which, frankly, is the only issue worth discussing here.”
Actually, I am vastly better informed about the gospel than you are - as you are about to display in the next sentences:
“Water/Baptism does not save - and nowhere in Scripture can that position be supported. NOWHERE.”
First, that is not what I said. I said it is the grace of baptism. Second, Peter said baptism saves (he meant the grace tha cleanses our soul in baptism).
“It is an act of obedience, which ECHOES an internal conversion - not saves in and of itself. Your use of 1 Peter 3:21 is a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of that Scripture.”
Not in the least. I noticed you seem to not want to post the verse: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
Now, Protestants today have to twist themselves into pretzles to avoid the plain meaning of this text. But what did the early Christians believe? Well, gee, they all agreed with the idea that baptism was a grace filled cleansing!
As Scripture Cathlic says:
1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase “not as a removal of dirt from the body” is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.
Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22 – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb. 10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior). Titus 3:6 and 1 Peter 3:21 also specifically say the grace and power of baptism comes “through Jesus Christ” (who transforms our inner nature).
“The Bible is not a buffet line in which one can pick and choose. Scriptures must always (and DO) support Scripture. Baptism is symbolic.”
Baptism is symbolic. So is Jesus. Then again, Jesus is more than symbolic and so is baptism. You are making the mistake of assuming that a thing cannot be both symbolic and effectual.
“The verse refers to the SYMBOLISM inherent in the flood and the fact that Noah’s family were Godly (prior to the flood), not that water saved them.”
No. Baptism is grace filled. Grace cleanses us. No on is saved without grace.
“Again, one need only look at John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:1-7, to name just a few, which clearly give the Gospel (as preached and accepted, by the way, in SBC churches.) ANY OTHER “GOSPEL” is heresy - regardless of any attempt to legitimize that “Gospel” by basing it on one Scripture.”
You completely misunderstand the scriptures - which is to be expected from a man in your position. Look again at John 3:
John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).
John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.
And Ephesians? Ephesians 4:5, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”
Your view is a new, novel view essentially invented in the 16th century. It has no connection whatsoever to Christianity. Here is what the Christians thought, instead:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num2.htm
“I know what the RC Church believes - and yes, there are many very deeply troubling beliefs taught by the RC:”
A cola teaches? Royal Crown cola?
“purgatory (contradicted by Luke 16:26, Hebrews 9:27),”
Nope. Not contradicted in the least: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/how2purg.htm
“worship of Saints (The Bible clearly states that every Christian is a Saint by virtue of their new position in Christ),”
We don’t worship saints: http://books.google.com/books?id=Y3TXSG3ty7AC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=patrick+madrid+saints&source=bl&ots=DgqGCh01Gv&sig=WO7CXW3Te5YmAoLYQhQ2rU9y0Tg&hl=en&ei=FBddSrvDCoLcNYrcgMAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
“adoration and veneration of Mary”
No Catholic adores her. She is venerated - and should be: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/key2mary.htm
“(Scriptures do not teach that she was sinless - as the RC denomination claims)”
Royal Crown cola is a denomination? Maybe. After all Protestants make up a new denomination about every three days. http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
“- nor are we to worship any created Being.”
We don’t.
“These are clear departures from Scriptures.”
Most of what you claimed we don’t even do nor have we ever done it.
“Your attempt to equate them with an altar call shows a clear misunderstanding of the basic precepts of salvation as outlined in Scripture.”
Nope, not in the least. What I pointed out was irrefutable: not all Christian practices are mentioned in scripture nor should anyone think they should be.
“Yes, there are differences between tradition and Scripture, but teaching that one can be prayed out of an in-between limbo state after death by those on Earth,”
What Church teaches that? Not the Catholic Church. Limbo is not a state from which someone could leave. And that proves my point. You make mistake after mistake and then insist you know what the Catholic faith is. Logically it is impossible for you to know much if you make so many mistakes.
“that one must pray to Mary and a special group of “saints” as declared by the RC church,”
Actually no one has to EVER pray to the Virgin Mary or even a single other saint to be saved. Never. Not once. And that is exactly what the Church teaches too. At the same time the Church teaches - correctly - that we are aided by the intercession of the saints in heaven and they, through their prayers for us, bind us closer to Christ. It is good to ask for such intercession. It is, however, not necessary. Again, you are completely wrong. That’s not surprising.
“...are not just differences in tradition. They touch - and distort - the heart of the Gospel message.”
The true doctrines - and not your distortions of them - do not in any distort the gospel. You do.
“If you reply, I must ask that you be respectful.”
ANd when will you be respectful to me? I am not a Royal Crown cola.
“You have urged me in several replies to refer to Catholic texts. I ask you in response to refer to the Bible.”
That’s exactly what I am doing. Everything I linked to discusses scripture.
“The fact that RC tradition has departed from Scripture since its inception is a fact proven by history - and more importantly from Scripture.”
Actually neither say that. Both history and the Bible show that the Church has remained true since Christ founded it.
“There are so many erroneous claims in the RC church that one hardly knows where to begin, but I have named a few in the above post.”
No. Most of what you named we don’t even believe in. This is a serious problem. Logically it means one of only wo things: 1) you are grossly misinformed and, quite frankly, couldn’t care less about being correctly informed. And this would show ill will on your part. Or 2) You know you are posting distortions. That would be a sad thing. But those are the only two possibilities. There are logically no others.
“The statement that you made that the Gospel as presented in Scriptures is only “part of the Gospel” is deeply troubling as it goes beyond Biblical authority.”
That’s yet another distortion on your part. What I said was that having ONLY faith is not the gospel. And that is exactly what he Bible teaches: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” A few years after inventing sola fide, Luther was forced to threaten to destroy the Letter of James precisely because of that verse which destroyed his thesis.
“Remember that the Scriptures forbid anyone to add to the Gospel message “lest he be anathema”.”
And yet Protestants do it all the time with sola fide and sola scriptura.
“If you wish to discuss this further, I am open to that - but only if the conversation is civil.”
Then why are you addressing a Royal Crown cola?
“I am not interested in being insulted or continuing argument for argument’s sake. It is clear that the RC church or at least its adherents - claim extra-Biblical texts as references for their claims.”
No. What we do is show how early Christians believed in what the Bible taught and that is what we have always taught since Christ founded the Church. You never truly cite scripture, however. You simply distort it. That’s all you can do.
“I base my salvation on Scripture.”
I base mine on Christ.
“It is the only God-given authority.”
Nope. The Church was given authority by Christ.
“Period. No texts, beliefs, traditions, etc... are co-equal to Scripture.”
The Church wrote scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and she alone can give authoritative interpretations of it. All you can do is distort it as you have been.
“I wish you well.”
I see no reason to believe that when you make false claims about what I believe. A man who says dozens of false things about me cannot possibly wish me well.
You are interested in bashing Protestantism, rather than dealing with the issues of the Gospel. That is a shame. You have turned so many Scriptures on end that you are in danger of doing what is warned about when Scriptures speak of those who “twist the Scriptures to their own destruction.”
NO CHURCH has the sole authority to interpret Scripture - nor do the Scriptures support this in any way. It is, and always has been, a power play by those who claim it.
You claim you base your salvation on Christ - but if You do not even know what He has said (and hasn’t said!), that is problematic in itself. That is the danger of relying on a particular interpretation which departs from Scripture on so many important points.
We clearly are arguing to no end here since you claim a particular Church’s teaching as co-equal to Scripture: a second “Truth”, if you will. I claim Scripture as the only authoritative source of Truth. PERIOD. As indeed it is, God be praised. We simply have two different points of reference. I will stick with Scripture here rather than man-made dogma.
No Church’s claim (regardless of what it chooses to say about itself) can equal Scripture. This is against Scriptures and not what they teach.
By the way, I do not fear to quote any Scripture - and have made references to Scripture far more than you (who have relied heavily on Catholic interpretation and commentaries, which have no Truth-value whatsoever as they were written by men and not inspired of God - which is clear since so much of what they teach is erroneous and not in line with Scripture.) The fact that I have not chosen to write out the entire quote was to save space, since I assume you have a Bible (but perhaps I should not have assumed that.) My apologies if you were unable to look up the verses for yourself.
You have indeed conflated the Catholic Church with a universal one. You claim they are the same and that Christ has established the Catholic Church (no where can that be found in Scripture, by the way). There is one body of Christ - but it is and never was the Catholic Church. Christ is the Head of His church - His body. There is no other: no infallible Pope, no Apostle, none - who has the right to claim this.
You state: “Again, I am not discussing “Roman Catholicism”. I would be more than happy to discuss Catholicism, however. You could at the very least muster up enough decency to call me by the proper appellation: Catholic.” Here we are arguing semantics, I think. The Catholic Church IS the Roman Catholic Church. You may call yourself anything you like, but they are one and the same. Decency does not dictate that I lie about such things - nor that you continue to deny them.
As for my wishing you well, why would I not? You are obviously confused about the role of Scripture for a believer and I will continue to pray for you - as I would anyone who trusts a particular Church’s teaching above clear Scriptural truth. (You have, again, shown a confusion in your understanding of the role of baptism as a purely symbolic act of obedience. And the idea that you claim that Christ is symbolic is purely frightening for one who claims to be a believer.)
The Catholic Church (call it whatever you wish) confuses sanctification with justification - as you did with the passage in James. We are justified by Christ before God, but IF we are justified, we will continually show, by our fruits of the spirit - sanctification. They are NOT one and the same. To claim salvation by works, as the CC does (and please, no cracks about Credit Cards here - you know exactly to what I am referring - as you did with “RC” - and it is an abbreviation), one must completely deny John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, and the others I cited in my reply to you several posts ago.
Your repeated assumptions that I am a man are off-base as well, by the way. Yet you have assumed so much I should not be surprised (and I am not).
I am not interested in continuing any conversation with so many “sidelines” rather than dealing with the Gospel. If you wish to continue to trumpet Catholicism over Protestantism, be my guest - but remember that your Church (regardless of the name by which you wish to call it!) cannot save you. Christ has not ordained any specific Church or denomination as His arbiter of Truth. He has given us the Scriptures. Inasmuch as ANY Church has departed or does depart from these, it is in danger of heresy. PERIOD. The Scriptures ALONE are infallible. No man-made commentary, creed, canon, opinion, etc... can compare - regardless of the claims of legitimacy by the Church putting it out. Putting one’s faith in the hands of what a particular Church says about the Bible is dangerous ground indeed.
We are obviously at an impasse here. I had hoped to discuss the Gospel with you but see that you are not genuinely interested in doing anything but trumpeting the Catholic Church. Since one cannot conflate Scriptural Truth and Catholicism, here we remain on opposite sides.